22 January 2007

Is it this newspaper article or the study itself, of this complex subject, that seems so dismissive of the way things are for women today, whether young or older. Surely this is only part of the problem, that teenage girls are becoming pregnant. What about the ones with unwanted pregnancies, or wanted ones, who decide not to terminate but go on to have the baby. And then, of course, did these researchers look at marital status. I'm not suggesting that all women need to have a husband in order to start a family (in today's world it is a choice that well-established women are free to make), but there may well be a difference in how an unwanted pregnancy develops, between single girls and married ones, as well as differences in ways of working through the problem. It's not all a question of getting "carried away in the moment," as Toni Belfield, of the sexual health charity FPA was reported as saying. I recall a book by Carol Gilligan, with the title In a Different Voice (1982) in which she discusses a study of college girls who become pregnant and are facing the dilemma of whether or not to have an abortion. The book may be a bit outdated for today's world. But making the problem of teen pregnancy into a clearcut issue, whereby wanted babies are carried full term while unwanted ones are aborted, seems dismissive of the process of decision-making that pregnant women must be having to go through, not to mention consideration of their socioeconomic circumstances.

6 January 2007

In today's article in The Telegraph by Caroline Davies, "I want my girl to have the 'Ashley treatment'" (06/01/07), young Katie's mother, in Britain, reflects on the situation of Ashley from Seattle, the nine-year old with the condition called 'static encephalopathy.'

I can understand the problem of size and weight, but I would be concerned about the idea of giving a hysterectomy for the reasons presented in the article. Okay, so Katie wouldn't understand what was happening when she menstruated, but she would get used to it, just as a person gets used to other bodily functions. Was it not also uncomfortable and a nuisance when her baby teeth started coming out and new teeth began growing in? Surely the indignity of going to a dentist, or other medical interventions, are something the health care provider or caregiver has to come to terms with. Pain at this time of the month, during menstruation, isn't something all girls experience, so I wonder if the parents/caregivers' know for sure this something she will always experience. I can understand a hysterectomy being performed for the sake of convenience, since menstruation is a nuisance, but I question the reasons given here for having it done. It doesn't seem entirely rational or even fair in some ways, and might be detrimental to the way such a normal happening could be viewed by girls growing up who are reading about this. Is life better when one can remain a child and not have to experience the annoyances and challenges that 'growing up' present? In part this is about quality of life and the experience of life. If one is having to live a restricted life, is it preferable to remain a child forever or to experience something of what it means to be a woman? I have refrained from making any comments about sexuality, though an implied consequence of the proposed hysterectomy and possible hormone treatment would be to have sexuality no longer an issue.

About Me

I graduated, as Sue Fulham, from Western University (UWO) in 1993 (HBA Sociology), and went on to do my MA in Sociology at University of Windsor. The title of my thesis was Women in transition: discourses of menopause. . . . . . . . . . . . I did my degrees later on in my life, having graduated in 1965 from Grade 13 at WCI in Woodstock, Ontario - as Susan Fulham - and raising a family - as Susan Herd. . . . . . . . . . . . . I started the blog in 2005, while living in England.